What I do not think is logical and reasonable are all the charges and conspiracy theories that are floating around.
One of the arguments I hear time and time again is that people are afraid to have the re-entry facility in their community because they fear the inmates will be released there.
Now again, if we are talking about legitimate fears, there are some. This will be a low security facility, I hope the county will work with the state to improve upon the security of the facility because that is a legitimate issue. However, what is not a legitimate issue is that prisoners will be released at the location of the facility. That is neither the intent of the law, AB 900, nor is it the intention of the county.
Indeed, the MOU between the county and state takes care of this issue–if there are any questions. In fact, the CDCR is responsible for ensuring that “all inmates released to parole from the Yolo SCRF will have coordinated transportation from the Yolo SCRF to their approved placement in the community based on the inmate’s reentry plan.”
As Supervisor Rexroad put it:
“My main concerns about release points is taken care of. Unless someone lives in Madison everyone will be transported to where they live. That was key to me. “
However, as I mentioned the security arrangement could use improvement:
“On a case by case basis, CDCR is willing to provide a boundary fence, as defined in CDCR’s design guidelines at the request of the County. Such fence shall be constructed so as not to unnecessarily restrict visitors, service providers and other non-CDCR personnel from entering the premises to conduct necessary business in connection with the operation of the SCRF. The design of the Secure Reentry Facility Prototype utilizes a secure building envelope that creates a secure perimeter. As a result, no additional security fencing is required or incorporated into the base prototype design.”
Finally, the MOU does not address another key fear by local communities on this issue and that is that the building not be transferred to other usages should the program no longer exist.
The termination clause reads as follows:
“This MOU shall automatically terminate without notice after seven years from this MOU’s effective date if the Yolo SCRF is not sited and operating.”
But it contains no provision for the building. So it is indeed conceivable from this MOU, that the building could move into new usage. The county should insist on a clauses that transfers the building back to their control if this program and current usage ever ceases.
There is a provision in the siting agreement that would enable the County to terminate it “if the County does not receive a conditional award of state bond funds for construction of a jail facility… and has exhausted or has waived, all administrative appeal procedures…”
In other words, the county will not get stuck with this facility unless they are ensured of getting their $30 million for the prison.
For me those two concerns are legitimate concerns with the MOU and the project.
Many have suggested that this building has to be in an urban area. I am far from convinced on that point. The location of Woodland would actually be a bit better in terms of transportation. But Madison is not a horrendous location. It would be problematic for those coming from West Sacramento, but workable from Woodland and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.
The release issue, as mentioned above, is a non-issue. The final point is one of services and infrastructure. Apparently that is going to have to occur anyway. The county clearly intends to expand the size of Madison to begin with. The state is responsible for the provision of services and infrastructure. They will be the ones who do the analysis and it will be interesting to see what would occur if they deemed it too costly.
I am generally one that is sympathetic for neighbor-issues with building projects of all sorts. I believe that people have invested huge percentages of their earnings and life-savings into their property. I think people have legitimate concerns about property values and quality of life. I do not begrudge people who do not want a facility of this sort by them as long as they do not in turn want a facility of this sort by someone else.
The notion of NIMBY means “Not in my backyard” but it implies inherently that they are willing to tolerate it elsewhere. By definition, you are not a NIMBY if you oppose it for all. That does not mean you necessarily oppose it for all with equal force. I may not want a biolab anywhere in the country because I fear any number of hazards may occur, but I will also spend far more time opposing it in Davis than I will even think about it in Virginia. That’s just a fact of life.
Where I do have a problem is the breakdown of civil discourse, the irresponsible charges, and conspiracies theories that have emerged.
Supervisor Matt Rexroad reports a lot of angry letters and people that have called him up, yelling at him. Sadly some of those folks are from Davis. I understand people’s frustrations, but they have to act like adults. It is counterproductive to yell.
As Mr. Rexroad put it on his blog:
“Over the past couple weeks I have noticed that when people start yelling at me about facts I can’t control — I just mentally turn them off. At that point they just need to yell so I let them go. Reason and rational thought just aren’t going to do anything for them.”
Then there are threats. For example:
“When you make your decision regarding the re-entry today, do so knowing that God has special places for those who make the wrong choices in life. Knowing all you know about this so called “re-entry”, how you can knowingly let down the very people that elected you for the almighty dollar is truely beyond me.”
Race Card and Brown Act Accusations
An attorney has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors on residents’ behalf. Some citizens are considering filing a lawsuit to stop the facility. Unfortunately the letter from the attorney seems counterproductive at best.
The race card has been played. The letter charged that the “proposed site is discriminatory to the poor and Hispanic community.”
“The county recognizes Madison as an economically disadvantaged area. It is home to a large migrant labor camp of almost exclusive Hispanic residents. Is Madison being selected as the proposed site because it lacks a significant affluent white population? Additionally, one author has noted that racism among white staff in rural prisons is pervasive.”
I see. Of course Woodland and West Sacramento have sizable Hispanic populations as well. That would leave only Davis as a possible site. Of course, then Davis could claim it is being discriminated against because it is the only predominantly white community. I am being facetious here, but this argument does not hold much water.
Then there are charges of Brown Act violations.
As Matt Rexroad put it:
“The point about the Brown Act does not even contain any evidence — it just states that the Board of Supervisors broke the law.”
Not only do these charges not contain evidence, they do not even contain a description of how the law was violated.
The letter simply states:
“The Conduct of the Hearing on the Potential Sites for this Prison Reentry Facility at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 9, 2008 Violated the Brown Act.”
Okay, can you now please explain what they did in violation of the Brown Act. You can state it all you want, but if you are going to file a legitimate complaint with either the District Attorney’s Office or the Attorney General’s Office, you need to have a description of what was in violation of the Brown Act.
These types of tactics are actually counterproductive–they tend to make public officials dig their heels in rather than listen to legitimate concerns–and I think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. They need to be addressed through reasoned discourse not threats and unfounded charges.
If you do not believe that the site will work–make an argument as to why that is the case, not a threat. I have seen no evidence that the Board violated the Brown Act on this. I do see some issues that need to be resolved. I hope the Board works to revise and strengthen the MOU if they decide to go ahead with the project. And I hope the Madison community at the very least works with them to improve the arrangement.
I understand that the people of Madison do not want this facility and “do not want to be known as a prison town.” That I can sympathize with, but they need more than just threats and charges to make that case to the Board.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.”
So, why isn’t this going in Solano County?
“and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.”
So, why isn’t this going in Solano County?
“and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.”
So, why isn’t this going in Solano County?
“and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.”
So, why isn’t this going in Solano County?
Those who play the race card aren’t playing with a full deck.
Those who play the race card aren’t playing with a full deck.
Those who play the race card aren’t playing with a full deck.
Those who play the race card aren’t playing with a full deck.
On the allegations of violations of the Brown Act, I do believe there were manipulations taking place on the part of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and county counsel to avoid public disclosures on specific elements of the planning process. Preliminary discussions on whether or not to move forward on approving the proposal of placing a re-entry facility within Yolo County were not protected discussions under the Act. Discussions on specific site locations are protected.
Relating to the issues of representative government, there are also so unresolved questions of conduct by the BOS. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was badgered into recusing himself because of alleged conflicts-of-interest; however, on the issue of conflicts-of-interest, Supervisor Rexroad ought to have been recused from the earlier discussions and votes on the proposed sites in the Dunnigan and Zamora areas. The fact that he has family connections to those areas of District 5 begs the questions as to why this particular aspect was never addressed much sooner than it was.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed site in Madison, approved yesterday by the BOS, is a development project that runs counter to the values, goals and objectives put forward in the draft Yolo County 2030 General Plan. Unfortunately, the bottom line on this issue of the re-entry facility has always been about the money. $30 million is a lot of money, and as Supervisor Thomson eluded, it seemed more of a deal with the Devil, and the analogy of selling the heart and soul of Madison is not that far of a stretch. But, of course, in this instance, the money prevailed.
No doubt there has been a great amount of emotion invested in the discussions surrounding the concept of establishing a prison re-entry facility in Yolo County. The level of concern becomes ever so amplified when the proposed location is right next to your community. It is not unlike an ill-conceived proposal to allow the placement of an X-rated video shop right next to a public school in your neighborhood … you just know that some rather unsavory elements of society are going to show up in areas much too close to home. However, instead of understanding and due consideration, these concerns from the potentially impacted communities has been met with attitudes of condescension and blind arrogance on the part of specific supervisors. Some individuals would prefer to blame the citizenry, but when you’re a servant of the people, you really need to appreciate who it is that you really work for. When you serve in that capacity and in the process lose sight of that vision and understanding, then you are no longer a representative of the people.
On the allegations of violations of the Brown Act, I do believe there were manipulations taking place on the part of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and county counsel to avoid public disclosures on specific elements of the planning process. Preliminary discussions on whether or not to move forward on approving the proposal of placing a re-entry facility within Yolo County were not protected discussions under the Act. Discussions on specific site locations are protected.
Relating to the issues of representative government, there are also so unresolved questions of conduct by the BOS. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was badgered into recusing himself because of alleged conflicts-of-interest; however, on the issue of conflicts-of-interest, Supervisor Rexroad ought to have been recused from the earlier discussions and votes on the proposed sites in the Dunnigan and Zamora areas. The fact that he has family connections to those areas of District 5 begs the questions as to why this particular aspect was never addressed much sooner than it was.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed site in Madison, approved yesterday by the BOS, is a development project that runs counter to the values, goals and objectives put forward in the draft Yolo County 2030 General Plan. Unfortunately, the bottom line on this issue of the re-entry facility has always been about the money. $30 million is a lot of money, and as Supervisor Thomson eluded, it seemed more of a deal with the Devil, and the analogy of selling the heart and soul of Madison is not that far of a stretch. But, of course, in this instance, the money prevailed.
No doubt there has been a great amount of emotion invested in the discussions surrounding the concept of establishing a prison re-entry facility in Yolo County. The level of concern becomes ever so amplified when the proposed location is right next to your community. It is not unlike an ill-conceived proposal to allow the placement of an X-rated video shop right next to a public school in your neighborhood … you just know that some rather unsavory elements of society are going to show up in areas much too close to home. However, instead of understanding and due consideration, these concerns from the potentially impacted communities has been met with attitudes of condescension and blind arrogance on the part of specific supervisors. Some individuals would prefer to blame the citizenry, but when you’re a servant of the people, you really need to appreciate who it is that you really work for. When you serve in that capacity and in the process lose sight of that vision and understanding, then you are no longer a representative of the people.
On the allegations of violations of the Brown Act, I do believe there were manipulations taking place on the part of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and county counsel to avoid public disclosures on specific elements of the planning process. Preliminary discussions on whether or not to move forward on approving the proposal of placing a re-entry facility within Yolo County were not protected discussions under the Act. Discussions on specific site locations are protected.
Relating to the issues of representative government, there are also so unresolved questions of conduct by the BOS. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was badgered into recusing himself because of alleged conflicts-of-interest; however, on the issue of conflicts-of-interest, Supervisor Rexroad ought to have been recused from the earlier discussions and votes on the proposed sites in the Dunnigan and Zamora areas. The fact that he has family connections to those areas of District 5 begs the questions as to why this particular aspect was never addressed much sooner than it was.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed site in Madison, approved yesterday by the BOS, is a development project that runs counter to the values, goals and objectives put forward in the draft Yolo County 2030 General Plan. Unfortunately, the bottom line on this issue of the re-entry facility has always been about the money. $30 million is a lot of money, and as Supervisor Thomson eluded, it seemed more of a deal with the Devil, and the analogy of selling the heart and soul of Madison is not that far of a stretch. But, of course, in this instance, the money prevailed.
No doubt there has been a great amount of emotion invested in the discussions surrounding the concept of establishing a prison re-entry facility in Yolo County. The level of concern becomes ever so amplified when the proposed location is right next to your community. It is not unlike an ill-conceived proposal to allow the placement of an X-rated video shop right next to a public school in your neighborhood … you just know that some rather unsavory elements of society are going to show up in areas much too close to home. However, instead of understanding and due consideration, these concerns from the potentially impacted communities has been met with attitudes of condescension and blind arrogance on the part of specific supervisors. Some individuals would prefer to blame the citizenry, but when you’re a servant of the people, you really need to appreciate who it is that you really work for. When you serve in that capacity and in the process lose sight of that vision and understanding, then you are no longer a representative of the people.
On the allegations of violations of the Brown Act, I do believe there were manipulations taking place on the part of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and county counsel to avoid public disclosures on specific elements of the planning process. Preliminary discussions on whether or not to move forward on approving the proposal of placing a re-entry facility within Yolo County were not protected discussions under the Act. Discussions on specific site locations are protected.
Relating to the issues of representative government, there are also so unresolved questions of conduct by the BOS. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was badgered into recusing himself because of alleged conflicts-of-interest; however, on the issue of conflicts-of-interest, Supervisor Rexroad ought to have been recused from the earlier discussions and votes on the proposed sites in the Dunnigan and Zamora areas. The fact that he has family connections to those areas of District 5 begs the questions as to why this particular aspect was never addressed much sooner than it was.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed site in Madison, approved yesterday by the BOS, is a development project that runs counter to the values, goals and objectives put forward in the draft Yolo County 2030 General Plan. Unfortunately, the bottom line on this issue of the re-entry facility has always been about the money. $30 million is a lot of money, and as Supervisor Thomson eluded, it seemed more of a deal with the Devil, and the analogy of selling the heart and soul of Madison is not that far of a stretch. But, of course, in this instance, the money prevailed.
No doubt there has been a great amount of emotion invested in the discussions surrounding the concept of establishing a prison re-entry facility in Yolo County. The level of concern becomes ever so amplified when the proposed location is right next to your community. It is not unlike an ill-conceived proposal to allow the placement of an X-rated video shop right next to a public school in your neighborhood … you just know that some rather unsavory elements of society are going to show up in areas much too close to home. However, instead of understanding and due consideration, these concerns from the potentially impacted communities has been met with attitudes of condescension and blind arrogance on the part of specific supervisors. Some individuals would prefer to blame the citizenry, but when you’re a servant of the people, you really need to appreciate who it is that you really work for. When you serve in that capacity and in the process lose sight of that vision and understanding, then you are no longer a representative of the people.
ThymeForSageAdvice:
Matt Rexroad does not have a conflict of interest for Dunnigan and Zamora because of family connections. There is no financial gain to Matt as it exists for Duane Chamberlain. You need to educate yourself on why we have conflict of interest laws. Duane wasn’t badgered. It is the law that you cannot vote on things where you have a direct financial gain or loss. It’s that simple. I don’t know what you are harping on. Duane voted on the Madison site. The Esparto site was removed. The site where he couldn’t vote was taken off of the table. How do you think the vote would have been different if Duane wasn’t recused or Matt was?
Don shor – Solano County isn’t receiving the 30 million and isn’t requesting it.
ThymeForSageAdvice:
Matt Rexroad does not have a conflict of interest for Dunnigan and Zamora because of family connections. There is no financial gain to Matt as it exists for Duane Chamberlain. You need to educate yourself on why we have conflict of interest laws. Duane wasn’t badgered. It is the law that you cannot vote on things where you have a direct financial gain or loss. It’s that simple. I don’t know what you are harping on. Duane voted on the Madison site. The Esparto site was removed. The site where he couldn’t vote was taken off of the table. How do you think the vote would have been different if Duane wasn’t recused or Matt was?
Don shor – Solano County isn’t receiving the 30 million and isn’t requesting it.
ThymeForSageAdvice:
Matt Rexroad does not have a conflict of interest for Dunnigan and Zamora because of family connections. There is no financial gain to Matt as it exists for Duane Chamberlain. You need to educate yourself on why we have conflict of interest laws. Duane wasn’t badgered. It is the law that you cannot vote on things where you have a direct financial gain or loss. It’s that simple. I don’t know what you are harping on. Duane voted on the Madison site. The Esparto site was removed. The site where he couldn’t vote was taken off of the table. How do you think the vote would have been different if Duane wasn’t recused or Matt was?
Don shor – Solano County isn’t receiving the 30 million and isn’t requesting it.
ThymeForSageAdvice:
Matt Rexroad does not have a conflict of interest for Dunnigan and Zamora because of family connections. There is no financial gain to Matt as it exists for Duane Chamberlain. You need to educate yourself on why we have conflict of interest laws. Duane wasn’t badgered. It is the law that you cannot vote on things where you have a direct financial gain or loss. It’s that simple. I don’t know what you are harping on. Duane voted on the Madison site. The Esparto site was removed. The site where he couldn’t vote was taken off of the table. How do you think the vote would have been different if Duane wasn’t recused or Matt was?
Don shor – Solano County isn’t receiving the 30 million and isn’t requesting it.
Dear Anonymous, the conflict-of-interest laws are much more comprehensive than apparently you’ve been lead to believe. They extend well beyond just the potential for financial gain, unless you’re claiming that potential acts of malfeasance fall outside of the scope of the conflict-of-interest statutes. And you are most certainly wrong in the assertion that Supervisor Chamberlain wasn’t badgered. There was considerable dialogue that ensued between county counsel and Supervisor Chamberlain before he agreed to recuse himself. Indeed, reportedly, Duane had to seek private legal counsel pursuant to the accusations. In terms of the Madison vote, you are correct that he did not recuse himself for that, but that certainly wasn’t the case for the September 9th Board meeting.
As for the ultimate outcome, who is to say whether or not it would have been different? Probably it wouldn’t be, but then again that is entirely in the realm of calculated speculation. The bigger issue is the questions that have been raised that shade the integrity of the overall process. When the decision-making process on very public matters gets pushed to the seclusion of closed-door sessions it does seriously complicate the veracity of due process. While the letter of the law pursuant to the Brown Act may not have been egregiously violated at every step, certainly the spirit and the intent of the Act were. If the integrity of the actions of the Board of Supervisors has been drawn into question … it is by the very affirmation of a majority of those same supervisors.
Dear Anonymous, the conflict-of-interest laws are much more comprehensive than apparently you’ve been lead to believe. They extend well beyond just the potential for financial gain, unless you’re claiming that potential acts of malfeasance fall outside of the scope of the conflict-of-interest statutes. And you are most certainly wrong in the assertion that Supervisor Chamberlain wasn’t badgered. There was considerable dialogue that ensued between county counsel and Supervisor Chamberlain before he agreed to recuse himself. Indeed, reportedly, Duane had to seek private legal counsel pursuant to the accusations. In terms of the Madison vote, you are correct that he did not recuse himself for that, but that certainly wasn’t the case for the September 9th Board meeting.
As for the ultimate outcome, who is to say whether or not it would have been different? Probably it wouldn’t be, but then again that is entirely in the realm of calculated speculation. The bigger issue is the questions that have been raised that shade the integrity of the overall process. When the decision-making process on very public matters gets pushed to the seclusion of closed-door sessions it does seriously complicate the veracity of due process. While the letter of the law pursuant to the Brown Act may not have been egregiously violated at every step, certainly the spirit and the intent of the Act were. If the integrity of the actions of the Board of Supervisors has been drawn into question … it is by the very affirmation of a majority of those same supervisors.
Dear Anonymous, the conflict-of-interest laws are much more comprehensive than apparently you’ve been lead to believe. They extend well beyond just the potential for financial gain, unless you’re claiming that potential acts of malfeasance fall outside of the scope of the conflict-of-interest statutes. And you are most certainly wrong in the assertion that Supervisor Chamberlain wasn’t badgered. There was considerable dialogue that ensued between county counsel and Supervisor Chamberlain before he agreed to recuse himself. Indeed, reportedly, Duane had to seek private legal counsel pursuant to the accusations. In terms of the Madison vote, you are correct that he did not recuse himself for that, but that certainly wasn’t the case for the September 9th Board meeting.
As for the ultimate outcome, who is to say whether or not it would have been different? Probably it wouldn’t be, but then again that is entirely in the realm of calculated speculation. The bigger issue is the questions that have been raised that shade the integrity of the overall process. When the decision-making process on very public matters gets pushed to the seclusion of closed-door sessions it does seriously complicate the veracity of due process. While the letter of the law pursuant to the Brown Act may not have been egregiously violated at every step, certainly the spirit and the intent of the Act were. If the integrity of the actions of the Board of Supervisors has been drawn into question … it is by the very affirmation of a majority of those same supervisors.
Dear Anonymous, the conflict-of-interest laws are much more comprehensive than apparently you’ve been lead to believe. They extend well beyond just the potential for financial gain, unless you’re claiming that potential acts of malfeasance fall outside of the scope of the conflict-of-interest statutes. And you are most certainly wrong in the assertion that Supervisor Chamberlain wasn’t badgered. There was considerable dialogue that ensued between county counsel and Supervisor Chamberlain before he agreed to recuse himself. Indeed, reportedly, Duane had to seek private legal counsel pursuant to the accusations. In terms of the Madison vote, you are correct that he did not recuse himself for that, but that certainly wasn’t the case for the September 9th Board meeting.
As for the ultimate outcome, who is to say whether or not it would have been different? Probably it wouldn’t be, but then again that is entirely in the realm of calculated speculation. The bigger issue is the questions that have been raised that shade the integrity of the overall process. When the decision-making process on very public matters gets pushed to the seclusion of closed-door sessions it does seriously complicate the veracity of due process. While the letter of the law pursuant to the Brown Act may not have been egregiously violated at every step, certainly the spirit and the intent of the Act were. If the integrity of the actions of the Board of Supervisors has been drawn into question … it is by the very affirmation of a majority of those same supervisors.
Dear thyme,
We run into this in Davis, where people are accused of having a conflict of interest because of where they work, who they know and extended family or friends living nearby, campaign contributions from the election 3 years ago. The only way to have someone completely neutral would be to elect people who don’t live in the City or County, have no business interests here and don’t know anyone who lives here. I don’t think that this is what we want. So it has to come down to direct financial gain or loss to be a recusable issue.
Can you be more specific about what you are looking at as a conflict of interest for Rexroad? Can you be more specific as to the Brown Act violations?
Dear thyme,
We run into this in Davis, where people are accused of having a conflict of interest because of where they work, who they know and extended family or friends living nearby, campaign contributions from the election 3 years ago. The only way to have someone completely neutral would be to elect people who don’t live in the City or County, have no business interests here and don’t know anyone who lives here. I don’t think that this is what we want. So it has to come down to direct financial gain or loss to be a recusable issue.
Can you be more specific about what you are looking at as a conflict of interest for Rexroad? Can you be more specific as to the Brown Act violations?
Dear thyme,
We run into this in Davis, where people are accused of having a conflict of interest because of where they work, who they know and extended family or friends living nearby, campaign contributions from the election 3 years ago. The only way to have someone completely neutral would be to elect people who don’t live in the City or County, have no business interests here and don’t know anyone who lives here. I don’t think that this is what we want. So it has to come down to direct financial gain or loss to be a recusable issue.
Can you be more specific about what you are looking at as a conflict of interest for Rexroad? Can you be more specific as to the Brown Act violations?
Dear thyme,
We run into this in Davis, where people are accused of having a conflict of interest because of where they work, who they know and extended family or friends living nearby, campaign contributions from the election 3 years ago. The only way to have someone completely neutral would be to elect people who don’t live in the City or County, have no business interests here and don’t know anyone who lives here. I don’t think that this is what we want. So it has to come down to direct financial gain or loss to be a recusable issue.
Can you be more specific about what you are looking at as a conflict of interest for Rexroad? Can you be more specific as to the Brown Act violations?
Dear Anonymous, again, the conflict-of-interest statutes are much more expansively defined than your selectively narrow interpretation. The alleged conflict-of-interest superimposed upon Supervisor Chamberlain surfaced because he reportedly had farming interests in a nearby field of one of the proposed sites. And somehow this is substantially different from having a direct link with a family with property holdings in a potentially impacted community in relationship to a different proposed location? If, as the Board of Supervisors has been claiming, the establishment of the proposed re-entry facility is to result in economic and, therefore, financial advantages to the selected community, that in and of itself conveys a prospect of potential financial advantage. Are you suggesting now that the supervisors misrepresented the potential economic impact?
As for the Brown Act violations, any non-site specific discussions on a full range of site selection criteria, any policy discussions such as siting the facility in a rural (exclusively, District 5) versus an urban location, any off-the-record communications with officials of the incorporated cities with respect to the general placement of the re-entry facility can all be considered violations. The mere fact that any particular agenda item may give rise to an outcome that has a potential for litigation is, soley by itself, insufficient. If that were the case, there would never be much public discourse on anything of interest. In the case of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the fear of litigation has basically been distilled down into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Dear Anonymous, again, the conflict-of-interest statutes are much more expansively defined than your selectively narrow interpretation. The alleged conflict-of-interest superimposed upon Supervisor Chamberlain surfaced because he reportedly had farming interests in a nearby field of one of the proposed sites. And somehow this is substantially different from having a direct link with a family with property holdings in a potentially impacted community in relationship to a different proposed location? If, as the Board of Supervisors has been claiming, the establishment of the proposed re-entry facility is to result in economic and, therefore, financial advantages to the selected community, that in and of itself conveys a prospect of potential financial advantage. Are you suggesting now that the supervisors misrepresented the potential economic impact?
As for the Brown Act violations, any non-site specific discussions on a full range of site selection criteria, any policy discussions such as siting the facility in a rural (exclusively, District 5) versus an urban location, any off-the-record communications with officials of the incorporated cities with respect to the general placement of the re-entry facility can all be considered violations. The mere fact that any particular agenda item may give rise to an outcome that has a potential for litigation is, soley by itself, insufficient. If that were the case, there would never be much public discourse on anything of interest. In the case of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the fear of litigation has basically been distilled down into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Dear Anonymous, again, the conflict-of-interest statutes are much more expansively defined than your selectively narrow interpretation. The alleged conflict-of-interest superimposed upon Supervisor Chamberlain surfaced because he reportedly had farming interests in a nearby field of one of the proposed sites. And somehow this is substantially different from having a direct link with a family with property holdings in a potentially impacted community in relationship to a different proposed location? If, as the Board of Supervisors has been claiming, the establishment of the proposed re-entry facility is to result in economic and, therefore, financial advantages to the selected community, that in and of itself conveys a prospect of potential financial advantage. Are you suggesting now that the supervisors misrepresented the potential economic impact?
As for the Brown Act violations, any non-site specific discussions on a full range of site selection criteria, any policy discussions such as siting the facility in a rural (exclusively, District 5) versus an urban location, any off-the-record communications with officials of the incorporated cities with respect to the general placement of the re-entry facility can all be considered violations. The mere fact that any particular agenda item may give rise to an outcome that has a potential for litigation is, soley by itself, insufficient. If that were the case, there would never be much public discourse on anything of interest. In the case of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the fear of litigation has basically been distilled down into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Dear Anonymous, again, the conflict-of-interest statutes are much more expansively defined than your selectively narrow interpretation. The alleged conflict-of-interest superimposed upon Supervisor Chamberlain surfaced because he reportedly had farming interests in a nearby field of one of the proposed sites. And somehow this is substantially different from having a direct link with a family with property holdings in a potentially impacted community in relationship to a different proposed location? If, as the Board of Supervisors has been claiming, the establishment of the proposed re-entry facility is to result in economic and, therefore, financial advantages to the selected community, that in and of itself conveys a prospect of potential financial advantage. Are you suggesting now that the supervisors misrepresented the potential economic impact?
As for the Brown Act violations, any non-site specific discussions on a full range of site selection criteria, any policy discussions such as siting the facility in a rural (exclusively, District 5) versus an urban location, any off-the-record communications with officials of the incorporated cities with respect to the general placement of the re-entry facility can all be considered violations. The mere fact that any particular agenda item may give rise to an outcome that has a potential for litigation is, soley by itself, insufficient. If that were the case, there would never be much public discourse on anything of interest. In the case of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the fear of litigation has basically been distilled down into a self-fulfilling prophecy.